So is the 2.3 NA motor non DISI?

[Young Roids]

So I was checking around the internet and I noticed the 2.0 liter na is DISI. And that the new 2.5 liter four from the 2010 3 is a non disi. Is the 2.3 na non disi as well?

 

[ElGaspo]

as far as i know the NA 2.3 l is NOT DISI, simple port fuel injection. that's 1 of the many things that sold me on the MS3 - i wanted to be 1 of the first ppl who had DI.

 

[Akaveli]

Yea the 2.3l na motor is not DI.

 

[Nliiitend1]

The only direct-injected production gasoline engines that Mazda currently produces are the 2.0 liter NA DISI motor in the new base 3, the 2.3 liter MSR DISI, and the new RENESIS rotary engine, if I recall correctly...

 

[Captain KRM P5]

The only direct-injected production gasoline engines that Mazda currently produces are the 2.0 liter NA DISI motor in the new base 3, the 2.3 liter MSR DISI, and the new RENESIS rotary engine, if I recall correctly...

the RENESIS is not direct injection. the 16X will be direct injection.

 

[Nliiitend1]

the RENESIS is not direct injection. the 16X will be direct injection.

That's the engine I was talking about (the new one)...I thought they were still referring to it as the Renesis (i.e., the "next-generation Renesis").

 

[Young Roids]

I would defenently go for the 2.0 if I was getting an NA motor then.

 

[oaklandopen]

as far as i know the NA 2.3 l is NOT DISI, simple port fuel injection. that's 1 of the many things that sold me on the MS3 - i wanted to be 1 of the first ppl who had DI.

you mean besides every other diesel?

 

[tiagotiago]

you mean besides every other diesel?

...and the owners of vintage Merc Gullwings.

 

[PCspeed3]

whats our average fuel pressure again? I remember seeing it one time but I forgot.

 

[brandini]

I would defenently go for the 2.0 if I was getting an NA motor then.

Why in the world of sports would you want to do that... look at the fueling ceiling the disi guys have hit at 400hp. It's a full hitachi system designed from the ground up to top out at a certain number.

The ONLY reason to want it is to get good mpg and have an excuse to use seafoam to clean your valves. Otherwise, you'll end up having to remake the complete fuel system and computer to get big gains if you go FI.

The did guys are looking at a piggyback port injection so they can get more power since the current system's injection start time is hard-coded into the ecu and you can only control duration. No point in spraying fuel into the exhaust stroke...

 

[Sport6]

whats our average fuel pressure again? I remember seeing it one time but I forgot.

At WOT it shouldnt really dip below 1700psi. Idle is somewhere around 400psi, cruising is anywhere between those.

 

[Young Roids]

Why in the world of sports would you want to do that... look at the fueling ceiling the disi guys have hit at 400hp. It's a full hitachi system designed from the ground up to top out at a certain number.

The ONLY reason to want it is to get good mpg and have an excuse to use seafoam to clean your valves. Otherwise, you'll end up having to remake the complete fuel system and computer to get big gains if you go FI.

The did guys are looking at a piggyback port injection so they can get more power since the current system's injection start time is hard-coded into the ecu and you can only control duration. No point in spraying fuel into the exhaust stroke...

If I wanted forced induction I would get the 2.3 disi like I have now. I was just saying if I was in the market for a an na motored car I would get a 2.0 disi 3.

 

[Young Roids]

It really bothers me a little bit that they didn't use disi in their 2.3 and new 2.5 liter engines. It don't make no damn sense.

 

[Captain KRM P5]

It really bothers me a little bit that they didn't use disi in their 2.3 and new 2.5 liter engines. It don't make no damn sense.

it makes perfect sense. there is nothing with port injection and its cheaper for them to use pre-existing components and systems on their more mass production cars. plus, its cheaper for them in the long run on warranty claims when you are using cheaper, more generic technology that is easier to work on for a technician being paid out of mazda's pockets.

if it ain't broke, don't fix it. besides, frankly, direct injection in the manner mazda has used it to date has shown next to no improvements over traditional injection. the fuel economy, fuel delivery, power per liter and efficiency simply aren't that much better than the old stuff as it sits right now. if the perceived benefits aren't staggering, why would mazda toss their existing systems into the wind? gradually, as direct injection technology improves, you'll see wider spread adoption i am sure. you didn't see a complete and total abandonment of carburetion when fuel injectors hit the scene and you won't see the same thing here. the refinement and understanding as well as cost effective manufacturing processes were not in place for years, and the same rule applies here.

 

[brandini]

If I wanted forced induction I would get the 2.3 disi like I have now. I was just saying if I was in the market for a an na motored car I would get a 2.0 disi 3.

So you would get the less powerful car based on injector type?

And well said Captain.

 

[Young Roids]

^^ As it is I will take my 2.3 liter disi over any other four cylinder on the market. I am speaking about if I were in the market for a compact car with an NA engine the 2.0 liter disi would be my first choice over the new 2.5 liter engine. I have looked at the schimatics and I like the design of the disi more.

 

[Young Roids]

it makes perfect sense. there is nothing with port injection and its cheaper for them to use pre-existing components and systems on their more mass production cars. plus, its cheaper for them in the long run on warranty claims when you are using cheaper, more generic technology that is easier to work on for a technician being paid out of mazda's pockets.

if it ain't broke, don't fix it. besides, frankly, direct injection in the manner mazda has used it to date has shown next to no improvements over traditional injection. the fuel economy, fuel delivery, power per liter and efficiency simply aren't that much better than the old stuff as it sits right now. if the perceived benefits aren't staggering, why would mazda toss their existing systems into the wind? gradually, as direct injection technology improves, you'll see wider spread adoption i am sure. you didn't see a complete and total abandonment of carburetion when fuel injectors hit the scene and you won't see the same thing here. the refinement and understanding as well as cost effective manufacturing processes were not in place for years, and the same rule applies here.

And I will take efi over carberator just as I take disi over efi. You have to remember direct injection systems have been in place in diesels for years. There is relativley little new technology being used here.

 

[brandini]

Then I'll smoke you with my port injected 2.3 without its valve gunk buildup. Wasn't there a direct injected motor out there that still has 1 efi injector just to clean all the valves?

 

[Captain KRM P5]

And I will take efi over carberator just as I take disi over efi. You have to remember direct injection systems have been in place in diesels for years. There is relativley little new technology being used here.

its the same principle in basis, its not the same technology. and diesel is a poor example because it never caught on en masse. remember methanol powered cars and filling stations? yeah, neither do i. the success of direct injection will be pass/fail based on what mazda chooses to do from here with it. they have a four cylinder that makes 260 crank horsepower with 15psi of boost. tell me whats so special about that, honestly, that other manufacturers haven't met or exceeded now or on past vehicles. i can name several without so much as an effort or thought.

^^ As it is I will take my 2.3 liter disi over any other four cylinder on the market. I am speaking about if I were in the market for a compact car with an NA engine the 2.0 liter disi would be my first choice over the new 2.5 liter engine. I have looked at the schimatics and I like the design of the disi more.

i'm sorry, you really aren't justifying your argument.

at present, i can think of innumerable reasons why i wouldn't take a DI over FI engine on this price category;

- fuel economy is no better
- air/fuel mixture is no better tuned. take a look at your tailpipe.
- power per liter is arguably worse than, or at the very best no better than, comparably tuned port injection cars with similar purposes
- parts are going to be cheaper outside of warranty
- vehicle will be easier to work on outside of warranty

if you like it and like the technology, thats cool. it has potential. but it is in its practically applied infancy and in practice has yet to prove itself vastly or remotely superior to port injection. the numbers and real world results bear that out. it has a ways to go, so based on all of that it doesn't "make no sense" for them to drop everything they presently produce and apply it to everything else. i'm not dogging the system, but its not the answer in its present form to a problem that honestly doesn't really exist.